What's EEVA?!?

[saac]

Never mind how many angels are dancing on the pin head  - just admire the dance .

Jim 

[vlaiv]

I think people have some misconceptions about EAA and "processing".

NV is like having analog sensor and old type cathode ray tube screen, small enough so that eyepiece is needed to view the image on it.

EAA is same thing in digital form - sensor is digital, and display is large and TFT/LCD type instead of CRT.

EAA offers better control. Processing is nothing more but enhancing what is already there - a bit like using filters in traditional observing. NV signal amplification is type of processing - linear processing. It even contains form of integration as phosphorus display shines for a bit longer - it accumulates multiple electron hits into single light output.

There is nothing wrong with processing - after all, there is processing done in traditional observing - it's done by our brain. One never sees photon noise while observing. This is because our brain filters out this noise. Why do we see things better the longer we observe it? Our brain also uses "stacking" - or integration of the signal.

[Stu]

16 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

small enough so that eyepiece is needed to view the image on it.

The eyepiece comes first (going into the focuser as normal), then the NV device connects to the top of the eyepiece so you are directly viewing the 'screen'

[Paul73]

We do seem to be broadly in agreement that NV observing threads don’t belong in this section???

Live (or near live) Observing reports in the Observing section. With an appropriate title. What could be easier??

I choose old school visual as my preferred path, but enjoy reading reports from other forms of observing. Partitioning things up will only deepen divides, when we should all be treating those exploring new ideas with respect and thanking them for sharing their journey.

Paul

[John]

17 minutes ago, Paul73 said:

As Stu (a dedicated visual chap) pointed out in his comprehensive NV observing report earlier this evening.

I really can’t understand why people get sniffy about NV as an observing tool. May as well cry foul that someone has got an Hbeta filter to view the, massively underwhelming, Horses Head.

Paul

An H-Beta filter doesn't provide amplification though - it just removes the wavelengths that are less relevent. As I understand it, NV is sensitive to a broader range of wavelengths than the unaided eye ?

I believe that the impact that NV can have is (easily) similar to doubling the aperture of a scope. No simple glass filter can achieve that, as far as I know.

 

 

[vlaiv]

3 minutes ago, Stu said:

The eyepiece comes first (going into the focuser as normal), then the NV device connects to the top of the eyepiece so you are directly viewing the 'screen'

Hm, that is interesting.

It does, however, make me wonder how it's actually working then. Since it's amplifying light by conversion to electrons, if light beam is coming from eyepiece, then it's collimated and at an angle (amplified angle). NV device must preserve this angle in amplified light - this means that surface emitting light needs to know direction that it needs to emit light in.

It can't just be a little screen with pixels - no human can focus at such a short distance.

Does using NV device change focus position for given eyepiece? (vs same EP without NV device)

[Paul73]

Responding to John’s thoughts 2 posts ☝️☝️☝️

True. But you do stick it in the focuser (with eyepiece attached) and stare into it. Rather than plugging things in, booting things up and looking at a laptop screen.

Re. Doubling the aperture. Good example. Take the Veil, OIII filter and 10” scope under ok sky = Naked 20” Scope under dark sky? Yes. That is only one type of target, and an extreme one at that. However, NV responds to some types of targets better than others.

Paul

Edited March 29, 2019 by Paul73

[Carl Reade]

Well I think it's Been well thought out as a title. It does cover all now. I really cannot understand the objections.

If your using your mark 1 eyeball through glass or mirrors or both then it's visual.

The moment you add electronics to that chain it's electronically enhanced and viewing.

At the end of the day your view is either enhanced with electronics or it's not.

If you want to make a visual report do it in visual if you want to show a picture do it here.

Or you could take up radio astronomy we are down at the bottom ???

[Ruud]

Once these new techniques are fully developed they will show live views of electronically captured images in user selectable bands from UV-b to near infrared that can (if the visual observer wants to) be stored as stills or video and shared. We'd better prepare for more abbreviations. I suggest we name them SBWREEVTs. That will impress people.

 

 

[nicoscy]

Being an admin on CN, I can only offer my perspective here as a member of SGL. 

NV is part of the broad electronically assisted astronomy theme, but in a different sense. It is purely visual real time (not near real time) observing. The use of an additional piece of gear that enhances light is akin to adding a Hb filter to see more detail on say NGC 7000. 

NV and traditional EAA (the second using a camera to either allow one image to form over the course of a few seconds, or stack images for a period of time to observe it) are thus completely different. One is truly real time observing, the other involves a more complicated setup and is not real time observing (I do both "regular" observing with eyepieces as well as traditional EAA).

SGL has 3 observers with NV gear at present. I do understand the admins wishing to create a separate section for EAA / EEVA, but NVers consider what they do as visual observing (which it is). So, they feel right at home discussing their observations in the observing subforums of SGL. Perhaps a separate NV observing subforum under the observing forum umbrella would be an adequate compromise to all?

Admittedly, at CN we are still working on trying to find a proper balance that will keep most people happy....

[cloudsweeper]

Well I have certainly learned a lot about these new approaches from this thread.  And I have enjoyed the posts from NV users, and feel SGL would be the poorer without them, so I do hope they continue to use whichever section they feel best suits their contributions.

Doug.

Edited March 29, 2019 by cloudsweeper

[GavStar]

12 hours ago, Steve said:

Nobody was banned from posting in the general observing forums ? 

Individual discussion boards help people find and share information with like-minded people on topics that interest them. They are not rigid enclosures. They are quite open because discussions and interests often overlap. 

HTH

Please could @Steve or @Grant clarify this comment? Does this mean that posts about night vision are still fine in the general observing and equipment sections (suitably labelled)? Or does this mean that nv users can post on the general sections but only on sessions where only standard glass eyepieces are used?

Edited March 29, 2019 by GavStar

[Grant]

The argument in all of this that resonates with me is the timing issue - have we made this change  before there is enough NVers to warrant their own section?

My concern though is will the NVers EVER want to have their own section or is this an idealogical issue whereby you will always want to be part of the purely visual observing sections regardless of how many NVers there are posting?

[Martin Meredith]

I imagine at some point quite soon we will have devices that fit into the drawtube that we will look through but that are in fact sensors + compute + screen, in an eyepiece-style package (fortunately the bar is pretty low in terms of miniaturisation given the size of some TeleVue eyepieces). Then the debate will begin again in earnest about whether we are observing or not.

Off-topic, but I've found adding a little random 'scintillation' to a near live EEVA image is really quite compelling in promoting a live feel. Also, one can do things like progressive stacking (adding in a portion of the last sub at say .5s intervals), which has a similar effect. Its all fakery (well, not quite; as Vlaiv said, our visual system does a lot of processing too, trading off noise suppression against sensitivity to the disadvantage of visual astronomers), but can satisfy the live urge for those that require it.

For me, EEVA is all about seeing deeper. Last night I was observing Arps in Leo and came across some real gems with incredibly faint but long tails, and I am fortunate to be able to do that with a mere 8" scope from a SQM 19.5 location in mediocre seeing rather than having to lug an 18" out to a dark site on a night of pristine skies. The idea that one is either observing or imaging seems to be a false dichotomy. Let's not forget that there is a good reason why astrophysicists like Arp used sensors, and that was not to produce great astrophotography. It is only on astronomy forums that this debate exists. I will choose to observe these fascinating objects in whatever way I feel is appropriate.

Martin

[GavStar]

42 minutes ago, Grant said:

The argument in all of this that resonates with me is the timing issue - have we made this change  before there is enough NVers to warrant their own section?

My concern though is will the NVers EVER want to have their own section or is this an idealogical issue whereby you will always want to be part of the purely visual observing sections regardless of how many NVers there are posting?

Ok, good questions. ?

I think it’s very likely that NV astronomy is going to remain being very rare in the UK (it’s very rare in the US and it’s far cheaper and easier to get there!). So I think consideration of a separate SGL NV forum is not appropriate for many years due to so few users...

On the idealogical issue, I have two observations: firstly my NV eyepiece sits along side my glass eyepieces since for all practical purposes they operate and feel like the same thing to me. This points me towards wanting to post about both types of observing in the normal observing sections. Second point, which sorry I have mentioned a few times already, both Alan and Mark would not have found out about NV if I had only have posted about NV in the EAa section. NV is so niche that the reality is for most people you just accidentally bump into it somehow and I really believe SGL should try to maximise the chances of this by allowing NV posts in standard sections. I was lucky, someone in my local astro club had a NV monocular already - most people won’t have that opportunity...

Edited March 29, 2019 by GavStar

[Thalestris24]

I think I'd quite like to have a go with NV . Can anyone recommend equipment to do it, bearing in mind I'm in a heavily light polluted red zone? Presumably, though, I'd have the same problems with NV as I have with imaging?

Thanks

Louise

[Grant]

I'm still not clear Gav - it sounds like this IS an idealogical issue and no matter how many NVers you would still want, on principle to post in the observing section?

I disagree with the argument that others wouldn't have discovered you if the posts were in a different section - usage stats of the forum don't support that people use the forum in that way, only looking at specific sections. That same argument could also be used for any other new technique or method in astronomy and we essentially get to the argument where we shouldn't separate observing and imaging or video astronomy etc.. etc.. as otherwise people might not find those posts either - it's simply not the case.

I would actually argue the opposite, having a clearly marked NV forum where all NV posts are together could help somebody who comes across it or finds it through googling 'night vision and astronomy'. Having all those posts in one place with equipment information and observational reports with NV kit would be really useful. As it stands this information is spread everywhere and there is no single place to go and find it - one could argue, perhaps that's why there are only 4 of you currently?

There is also another point here, there are plenty of visual observers, using the observing section that don't want to see NV posts in there and don't agree they are the same thing or even close. The recent decision to request that NV posts clearly state in the topic title that they concern NV reinforces this.

 

[Grant]

3 minutes ago, Thalestris24 said:

I think I'd quite like to have a go with NV . Can anyone recommend equipment to do it, bearing in mind I'm in a heavily light polluted red zone? Presumably, though, I'd have the same problems with NV as I have with imaging?

Thanks

Louise

Best to start your own thread here Louise: https://stargazerslounge.com/forum/287-discussions-eeva-equipment/.

[GavStar]

17 minutes ago, Grant said:

I'm still not clear Gav - it sounds like this IS an idealogical issue and no matter how many NVers you would still want, on principle to post in the observing section?

I disagree with the argument that others wouldn't have discovered you if the posts were in a different section - usage stats of the forum don't support that people use the forum in that way, only looking at specific sections. That same argument could also be used for any other new technique or method in astronomy and we essentially get to the argument where we shouldn't separate observing and imaging or video astronomy etc.. etc.. as otherwise people might not find those posts either - it's simply not the case.

I would actually argue the opposite, having a clearly marked NV forum where all NV posts are together could help somebody who comes across it or finds it through googling 'night vision and astronomy'. Having all those posts in one place with equipment information and observational reports with NV kit would be really useful. As it stands this information is spread everywhere and there is no single place to go and find it - one could argue, perhaps that's why there are only 4 of you currently?

There is also another point here, there are plenty of visual observers, using the observing section that don't want to see NV posts in there and don't agree they are the same thing or even close. The recent decision to request that NV posts clearly state in the topic title that they concern NV reinforces this.

 

Ok I guess we are just not going to reach agreement on this point. All the NV users are saying quite clearly that they would like to post on the main topic boards. If we label the posts clearly as NV, other posters can ignore it if they wish. I have reflected a good deal on this topic and hope I have expressed my opinion clearly and politely.

But at the end of the day it’s up to you to decide. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by GavStar

[estwing]

If NV is under it's own section then it will clearly get attention...otherwise it may get lost or swamped in another. 

[estwing]

This seems as if you're getting a great opportunity to showcase your equipment and findings with NV...go for it!?

[Steve]

3 hours ago, GavStar said:

Please could @Steve or @Grant clarify this comment? Does this mean that posts about night vision are still fine in the general observing and equipment sections (suitably labelled)? Or does this mean that nv users can post on the general sections but only on sessions where only standard glass eyepieces are used?

Discussions and communities don't work like that so we cannot (and don't want to) make rigid black & white rules that dictate what subjects can or cannot be posted in SGL's discussion boards (with the usual notable exceptions, of course). 

If you choose to post about your experience using an image intensifier eyepiece attachment (for want of a better description!) in a discussion board normally occupied by astronomers using regular eyepieces then we respectfully suggest you mention the equipment you are using, otherwise it might cause confusion. 

Topic based discussion boards, when used, make it easier for members to find like-minded people and information on a topic that interests them. This is not an unusual approach. It is a well established format. 

We are confident the new EEVA discussion board will prove popular over time as the equipment becomes more affordable and more easily available.

HTH 

[Paul73]

16 minutes ago, Steve said:

we respectfully suggest you mention the equipment you are using, otherwise it might cause confusion. 

To be fair. That is exactly what is happening. Currently, zero confusion.

At least, and unusually, I’m not confused.?

[domstar]

I'm really struggling to see the benefit of making an NV section for people who don't want it. The technical issues are unimportant. What is important is the opinions of the NV users. If people have negative feelings towards NV then they could swallow them in the name of inclusiveness (and not read the reports if they don't want to). 

This site is excellently organized to help users easily find what they are looking for. At the moment I would be surprised to read that the observation reports section has become unwieldy because of the volume of NV reports. I wish we all had skies clear enough that the observation reports section was swamped by contributions ?.

[elpajare]

I would like this to be a place where we could share our experiences on how to get a better vision of celestial objects without being subject to more rules than the essential ones.

Like so many others, I went from visual observation to an electronically enhanced observation in order to enjoy the vision of objects that otherwise were difficult for my human eyes to see. Welcome the electronic help
The problem begins when what we can see on a screen with short exposures and stacking is not allowed to be improved later electronically. Why?
We know the techniques of astrophotography and the material that is used and they are not the same as those that we use. Where can we publish our modest results without being banned, despised or simply ignored?
I hope this can be the ideal place!